Aging Avant-Garde

[Guy Berger]

On a list I was on, someone said:

Almost all young jazz musicians are playing hard bop now, very few are

playing avant gardee music. Twenty years ago the situation was

different. Twenty years ago avant gard musicians gigged around the

country. They rarely play out side of the larger cities. That is why I

made that statement. I think the facts substantiate my position. There

used to be many concerts of avant garde jazz here in Atlanta. There has

not been one here in years.

This struck me as a very implausible argument (except for the comments about Atlanta -- I have no clue what the scene there is like). The whole downtown NYC scene still seems quite active to me though I don't follow it very closely, and of course things are coming out of Chicago all the time.

What do you think?

Guy

[Jim Alfredson]

I think the avant garde isn't so avant garde anymore.

[GA Russell]

I lived in Atlanta twenty years ago, and there were no avant garde concerts there that I was aware of.

[JSngry]

If it's true, it means that young musicians are rejecting old music in favor of even older music. That's kinda sad.

But I don't think it's totally true. The younger musicians I come into contact with look at the "avant garde" as one of many "styles" to incorporate into their repertoire. That's kinda sadder.

It seems that it's all about learning styles now, not telling personal stories in a personal language. And that's really sad, although that's obviously not a widely shared opinion, which is really sadder.

And a lot of people seem to not know the difference,which would be so sad as to make me cry if I still gave a damn, which is rapidly becoming more trouble than it's worth.

I'm guess I'm just a sad guy, but I'm happy in spite of it. Go figure.

[JSngry]

I think the avant garde isn't so avant garde anymore.

Exactly.

[Chuck Nessa]

If it's true, it means that young musicians are rejecting old music in favor of even older music. That's kinda sad.

But I don't think it's totally true. The younger musicians I come into contact with look at the "avant garde" as one of many "styles" to incorporate into their repertoire. That's kinda sadder.

It seems that it's all about learning styles now, not telling personal stories in a personal language. And that's really sad, although that's obviously not a widely shared opinion, which is really sadder.

And a lot of people seem to not know the difference,which would be so sad as to make me cry if I still gave a damn, which is rapidly becoming more trouble than it's worth.

I'm guess I'm just a sad guy, but I'm happy in spite of it. Go figure.

Sad indeed. It is easier to adopt/adapt a "style" than to create new music. Those days are temporarily (i hope) suspended.

The "death of jazz" occurred when "style" became more important than music.

[ep1str0phy]

Being of the younger generation, I can testify, at least, to the pretty substantial division between those who would wish to play 'jazz' per se and those kids/young folk who self-consciously identify with less structural music. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but I have yet to meet any younger individuals actively involved in apprehending the jazz canon who have any functional knowledge of anything that might be called "free *". At the same time, I'm not sure as to the extent that younger 'noise' musicians have studied aspects of jazz history beyond the free guys. The communities are schizmatized, no doubt.

What is sad is that (I'm a WC cat, btw) I don't see too many individuals playing in that middle-ground sandbox--i.e., free jazz versus free improvisation. The dichotomy between the two communities (and, of course, my knowledge of youth involvement is restricted to those guys I've come across) seems so large that I very seldom hear any reconciliation between the (now very idiomized) stylistic mores of hard bop on the one hand and all-out-free on the other. Maybe the two camps are just bored with each other.

On the upside, a lot of the younger guys I play with are fairly receptive to free playing in a jazz mode when it shows up (i.e., isn't agreed upon ahead of time). Sometimes I do get that sinking Eric Dolphy feeling that everyone around me doesn't like what I play, but goddamnit I'll play a half step up if I need to--some guys seem to dig it, anyway.

Edit as I didn't see Chuck's quote--yeah, that's a big issue. There's a difference between opening up out of exigency and opening up because the 'style' dictates it. Us younger folk are kind of taught to think in that mode--it's a shame.

Edited October 23, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[chris]

I think the avant garde isn't so avant garde anymore.

Happens constantly, pretty much by definition...

In most arts I am more familiar with-- such as poetry-- there is always some group that is doing something new (the avant), but of that group only a minority are really "feeling it" and creating that way out of a necessity to create for others what is in their head. The rest are along for the ride. Eventually that group gets absorbed (in a good way) into the next group pushing frontiers, while others continue to pretend, and new people who don't get it imitate them.

For some it's taking the easy way, trying to take a shortcut to being one of that progressive group. For others it's just a symptom... that's the saddest thing-- people bereft of a way to see and to share because they've lost touch with their creative drive and all they can do is imitate and replicate, albeit quite skillfully sometimes...

[added after reading ep1str0phy's post]

That's the crux of the issue-- "modern" artists who are ignorant of the history and then those artists creating today so lost in the history it might as well be yesterday for them!

Edited October 23, 2006 by chris

[JSngry]

And are we in some sort of agreement, Chuck, that "new music" doesn't necessarily mean not playing in a pre-existing idiom nearly as much as it means speaking in a personal voice no matter what the idiom?

I'm not nearly as bugged by young cats playing hard bop as I am by hearing them play it w/o any intent to do anything other than make the changes and play the licks. And I hear that in a lot of contemporary "free" playing too.

For every Shelley Carroll (who's really not "young" any more...), there's literally 100 cloneophone players. It's always been like that, but the ratio continues to expand, with no end in sight, as the cloneophonists have been fortunate enough to have been born into a time when the possibility of a smackdown by a jury of their elders, no longer exists. Too many of the few remainders are happy just to have the company. Death's a bitch that way.

I'm to the point now where all I can say is "screw jazz". It was fun while it lasted, it's still fun where it still lives, and the memories are the stuff of dreams, but as an ongoing proposition....nah. It's over, at least as far as what I'm looking for (and used to find pretty regularly). Time to move on.

And that.....does not make me sad.

Edited October 23, 2006 by JSngry

[Chuck Nessa]

And are we in some sort of agreement, Chuck, that "new music" doesn't necessarily mean not playing in a pre-existing idiom nearly as much as it means speaking in a personal voice no matter what the idiom?

I'm not nearly as bugged by young cats playing hard bop as I am by hearing them play it w/o any intent to do anything other than make the changes and play the licks. And I hear that in a lot of contemporary "free" playing too.

For every Shelley Carroll (who's really not "young" any more...), there's literally 100 cloneophone players. It's always been like that, but the ration continues to expand, with no end in sight, as the cloneophonists have been fortunate enough to have been born into a time when the possibility of a smackdown by a jury of their elders, no longer exists. Too many of the few remainders are happy just to have the company. Death's a bitch that way.

I'm to the point now where all I can say is "screw jazz". It was fun while it lasted, it's still fun where it still lives, and the memories are the stuff of dreams, but as an ongoing proposition....nah. It's over, at least as far as what I'm looking for (and used to find pretty regularly). Time to move on.

And that.....does not make me sad.

I will agree to the extent I see your post as a "fall back position" of sorts. The majority of the "contemporary" music I hear is one or two steps above "making the changes and playing the licks" etc and that is what is most disheartening for me.

[kh1958]

And are we in some sort of agreement, Chuck, that "new music" doesn't necessarily mean not playing in a pre-existing idiom nearly as much as it means speaking in a personal voice no matter what the idiom?

I'm not nearly as bugged by young cats playing hard bop as I am by hearing them play it w/o any intent to do anything other than make the changes and play the licks. And I hear that in a lot of contemporary "free" playing too.

For every Shelley Carroll (who's really not "young" any more...), there's literally 100 cloneophone players. It's always been like that, but the ratio continues to expand, with no end in sight, as the cloneophonists have been fortunate enough to have been born into a time when the possibility of a smackdown by a jury of their elders, no longer exists. Too many of the few remainders are happy just to have the company. Death's a bitch that way.

I'm to the point now where all I can say is "screw jazz". It was fun while it lasted, it's still fun where it still lives, and the memories are the stuff of dreams, but as an ongoing proposition....nah. It's over, at least as far as what I'm looking for (and used to find pretty regularly). Time to move on.

And that.....does not make me sad.

I disagree with you for the most part. There are still plenty of interesting creative jazz musicians, albeit there are lots more boring clones as you state. You just have to work harder to find them, unlike the past when it now seems like there was a giant on every street corner.

[ep1str0phy]

Man--the spirit is there, but really obscure. I meet young guys all the time who are just enthralled at the prospect of playing for fun and spirit and joy--and it doesn't always mean meeting some set of criteria. What is fucked up is when that feeling gets nipped in the bud--the minute, after the predilections of the educrats slip through the systems, that kids start to think that jazz is all chords and theory and shit. Too many teachers can't take the liberty, and it shows in the kids. I have no doubt that technical proficiency would occur--organically--if we spent time teaching each other that improvisation and jazz aren't all changes (though that doesn't mean that the changes can't hang...). We've had people die for that cause. Now that makes me sad.

Edited October 23, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[ghost of miles]

I know I'm gonna sound like the proverbial stuck record (er, uh, make that the proverbial skipping CD), but if jazz endures (and I think it will), it is not going to sound much like what we've come to expect "jazz" to sound like. For better and for worse.

[ghost of miles]

I also can't use Bloomington as a good test example, because we have a # of young musicians here attending the IU School of Music--but at most jazz shows I attend here, the age demographic skews heavily towards older... except for the avant-garde shows, which nearly always seem to have the most diverse audiences.

[JSngry]

And are we in some sort of agreement, Chuck, that "new music" doesn't necessarily mean not playing in a pre-existing idiom nearly as much as it means speaking in a personal voice no matter what the idiom?

I'm not nearly as bugged by young cats playing hard bop as I am by hearing them play it w/o any intent to do anything other than make the changes and play the licks. And I hear that in a lot of contemporary "free" playing too.

For every Shelley Carroll (who's really not "young" any more...), there's literally 100 cloneophone players. It's always been like that, but the ratio continues to expand, with no end in sight, as the cloneophonists have been fortunate enough to have been born into a time when the possibility of a smackdown by a jury of their elders, no longer exists. Too many of the few remainders are happy just to have the company. Death's a bitch that way.

I'm to the point now where all I can say is "screw jazz". It was fun while it lasted, it's still fun where it still lives, and the memories are the stuff of dreams, but as an ongoing proposition....nah. It's over, at least as far as what I'm looking for (and used to find pretty regularly). Time to move on.

And that.....does not make me sad.

I disagree with you for the most part. There are still plenty of interesting creative jazz musicians, albeit there are lots more boring clones as you state. You just have to work harder to find them, unlike the past when it now seems like there was a giant on every street corner.

"Plenty" & "working harder to find them" is sort of a disconnect for me. I know what you mean, but geez, I've spent many a year doing that work and... the point of diminishing returns seems at hand. Maybe it's just me.

But I do wanna hear this ep1str0phy cat once he gets good and pissed off!

[ep1str0phy]

And are we in some sort of agreement, Chuck, that "new music" doesn't necessarily mean not playing in a pre-existing idiom nearly as much as it means speaking in a personal voice no matter what the idiom?

I'm not nearly as bugged by young cats playing hard bop as I am by hearing them play it w/o any intent to do anything other than make the changes and play the licks. And I hear that in a lot of contemporary "free" playing too.

For every Shelley Carroll (who's really not "young" any more...), there's literally 100 cloneophone players. It's always been like that, but the ratio continues to expand, with no end in sight, as the cloneophonists have been fortunate enough to have been born into a time when the possibility of a smackdown by a jury of their elders, no longer exists. Too many of the few remainders are happy just to have the company. Death's a bitch that way.

I'm to the point now where all I can say is "screw jazz". It was fun while it lasted, it's still fun where it still lives, and the memories are the stuff of dreams, but as an ongoing proposition....nah. It's over, at least as far as what I'm looking for (and used to find pretty regularly). Time to move on.

And that.....does not make me sad.

I disagree with you for the most part. There are still plenty of interesting creative jazz musicians, albeit there are lots more boring clones as you state. You just have to work harder to find them, unlike the past when it now seems like there was a giant on every street corner.

"Plenty" & "working harder to find them" is sort of a disconnect for me. I know what you mean, but geez, I've spent many a year doing that work and... the point of diminishing returns seems at hand. Maybe it's just me.

But I do wanna hear this ep1str0phy cat once he gets good and pissed off!

The functional word is "good". Good partially means hooking up with some guys who can f'ing feel what I'm doing...

Man, there are struggles with optimism. After a while you stop thinking and play, no? It's fun waking up and proclaiming: I might just turn this mother out...

Edited October 23, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[JSngry]

There is absolutely no reason to be optimistic. None whatsoever. So put that out of your head right now.

However, there is love, which is a tempestuous bitch, to put it mildly. But it's a helluva lot better for you than optimism.

Enjoy!

[JSngry]

I mean, your jazz teachers reward optimism, right? And your jazz teachers are not your friends, right?

Do the math.

[Larry Kart]

Not true of Chicago.

[ep1str0phy]

I mean, your jazz teachers reward optimism, right? And your jazz teachers are not your friends, right?

Do the math.

Well, that's my quote of the day.

On a whole nother level--and something clem brought up--there's the idea that a lot of interesting modern improv (in the last three or so decades, in particular) was almost vehemently grassroots before getting globalized. The upsetting component to all this is how parochial those microcosmic scenes are--and elitism, even (or maybe especially) among the guys doing the "new stuff," is truly and obstinately out there.

[Tom Storer]

And are we in some sort of agreement, Chuck, that "new music" doesn't necessarily mean not playing in a pre-existing idiom nearly as much as it means speaking in a personal voice no matter what the idiom?

[...]

I'm to the point now where all I can say is "screw jazz". It was fun while it lasted, it's still fun where it still lives, and the memories are the stuff of dreams, but as an ongoing proposition....nah. It's over, at least as far as what I'm looking for (and used to find pretty regularly). Time to move on.

if jazz endures (and I think it will), it is not going to sound much like what we've come to expect "jazz" to sound like.

The above quotes dovetail perfectly. Jim says what's important is a personal voice, and to hell with jazz if that's not what jazz is about anymore. Ghost says the jazz that may endure--implied: that which encourages the personal voice--won't sound like jazz, i.e. like the jazz we've grown up with. So Jim, if you move past jazz, maybe you'll really be moving into jazz of another, not immediately recognizable stripe. One you'll be helping define. Then again, maybe you'll move into Asian hip-hop and that will be that.

I've been thinking about all this sort of thing since the weekend, when I saw William Parker/Hamid Drake/Roy Campbell/Daniel Carter and was bored silly, while in the meanwhile I've been reading Larry Kart's superb book, "Jazz In Search Of Itself" (loud applause to Larry), a big theme of which is jazz as self-enactment. The Parker group sounded like jazz, and the bass and drums had moments of admirable stylistic strength, but in general, if they were revealing themselves, as a group, then they're an awfully bland bunch. Which I seriously doubt is the case, hence I think they were merely "playing a style". Meanwhile in the upstairs, separately ticketed room of the same club, a French alto saxophonist named Pierrick Pedron was playing bebop in a quartet with Mulgrew Miller. I longed to be able to switch allegiance and go upstairs, where the style being played was fifty years older but one that I think is a lot richer, and in which at least one player was without doubt playing for real. [dons asbestos suit in anticipation of assault by William Parker fans]

[king ubu]

Evan Parker, Peter Brotzmann, Joe & Mat Maneri, Joe McPhee, Vandermark (a few times) & ... uh, others I am forgetting. it ain't New York but it ain't nuttin'. the thing is, however, all that shit is pretty dependent on a few motivated locals-- if someone's griping, they oughta make an effort to do sumpin' about it.

I think that's the point - and the one reason for optimism, too, despite I can relate to what Jim said... but if you think a bit harder, this is it. There's a bunch of dedicated musicians doing *good* stuff everywhere, but it's not those, in most cases, that are able to "make it" and build and international reputation (or even national - think of the great Bay Area scene, who knows them in NYC? Who cares? Not many, but even I in Zurich did find out, eventually...).

That's maybe what the point as far as "plenty" and "working harder to find them" is about. I don't think anyone here has heard of Christoph Gallio, Christian Weber, Christian Wolfahrt, the recently deceased Fredi Luescher, Co Streiff, Tommi Meier, Marco Kaeppeli... just a few of the good local musicians doing their things, regardless of their fame, and probably all struggling quite hard to be able to do it, but that won't turn them into young hardbop clones (like the young chaps from the jazz schools... maybe throw in some samples and beatz, too... uh, how boring).

And as far as the "diminishing returns" are concerned: wasn't that always like this? There's plenty of good stuff, but you always have to sit through a couple of boring spots or sets at any festival. The freer the music gets, one might argue, the higher the risk of boredom... believe me, I've been to concerts where four crazy chaps have been working hard for an hour, and just not one damn thing happened.... that must be like it is in hell, I assume... but on the other hand, some mainstreamos playing standards and oh-so-hip originals and relying on the usual hardbop clichées, that can be just as much hell to get through, or even worse, because they don't even take any chances at all.

'nuff said

ub

PS: funny to see some others find W Parker boring... long time been there, never really clicked, except maybe on that Codanza 10CD Feel Trio box...

[David Ayers]

Hey that CD of Evan Parker in Atlanta is a (still available) classic!

[there's a book by a French guy on the end of jazz - anybody remember what it is called? I don't think there was a translation]

Edited October 23, 2006 by David Ayers

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Not true of Chicago.

Larry - you and Chuck are both in the Chicago scene and I'd trust BOTH of you to say the right thing, especially on this subject, in which I know little. But...

MG

[brownie]

[there's a book by a French guy on the end of jazz - anybody remember what it is called? I don't think there was a translation]

You are probably refering to this book: Le Jazz est-il encore possible?. (Is Jazz Still Possible?).

The author turned away jazz criticism and - unless he retired recently - is now a successful book editor!